explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2187: Geologic Time

2019-08-12T17:22:22Z

Whereisspike: /* Please use the metric system in your explanation. Randall does not approve of imperial units. */

Football pitches don't have five-yard lines…{{unsigned ip|141.101.98.148}}
:You pitch a baseball, not a football.{{unsigned ip|172.69.170.88}}
::Yes and in the comic it does say Football field. And Randall is known for not knowing anything about sport, so he may project this onto the geologist and not let her know about the five yard line... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
::And at the risk of being picky, I'm sure Randall is talking about an American football field, which does have five-yard lines. They just don't have a label on the field, which is only the ten-yard lines, but there is a line across the field every five yards. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 00:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I agree that Randall is definitely referring to NFL-style US Football in this comic. Also, since the US women's 'futbol' team won the world cup, we're officially calling it 'Soccer' until someone wins the championship back from us. ;S
:::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 11:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Agree it is a American Football field (as we call it abroad, also you do not use your feet much to kick the ball compared to Soccer). Do Woman play football? I believe most people who actually care about football do not care for the Womans futbal :-D By the way I don't care for sport, almost on the same level here as Randall, and also I did not know that there were a 5 yard line on an American Football field, but all the time assumed it was. As far as I know there are no distance lines on a regular real football field (soccer field to you). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we have a geology category, like we have [[:Category:Geography]] and many other science categories? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
:Just realizes I could easily find more than 10 comics that would fit into that category, so I have created it: [[:Category:Geology]]

This reminds me of The Cosmic Calendar from Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV Series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln8UwPd1z20 [[User:Gpg|Gpg]] ([[User talk:Gpg|talk]]) 20:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
:The title text reminds me of a cartoon I once read where these two guys talk to God hidden in the clouds. Guy: ''God is it true that a million years feel like a minute to you?'' God: ''Yes my son.'' Guy: ''Is it also true that a million dollars would be like a dime to you?'' God: ''Yes my son, that is true!'' Guy: ''God, could you spare a dime for me?'' God: ''Yes my son, in a minute.'' :-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What does anything in this comic mean? Asking for… absolutely everyone in every single country except the USA. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 09:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:I think there are a few people outside the USA who understand yards and feet, and even what an American football field is. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] ([[User talk:Catherine|talk]]) 10:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
::Sure, but very few outside the USA have an intuitive feel for what the actual relative sizes are except for "a football field is probably pretty big and a microscope can see very small things". So outside the USA it's an analogy that is less useful than just saying the time in years. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 13:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:::A regular football field and an American football field is almost the same size and a yard is close to a meter. I'm pretty sure than 90% of those coming here did understand the analogy in this comic, and the other 10% was probably from the US ;-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Please use the metric system in your explanation. Randall does not approve of imperial units. ==

[[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.172|172.68.182.172]] 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

He wouldn't touch the imperial system with a 3.048 meter pole [[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2187: Geologic Time

2019-08-12T17:21:25Z

Whereisspike: /* Please use the metric system in your explanation. Randall does not approve of imperial units. */

Football pitches don't have five-yard lines…{{unsigned ip|141.101.98.148}}
:You pitch a baseball, not a football.{{unsigned ip|172.69.170.88}}
::Yes and in the comic it does say Football field. And Randall is known for not knowing anything about sport, so he may project this onto the geologist and not let her know about the five yard line... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
::And at the risk of being picky, I'm sure Randall is talking about an American football field, which does have five-yard lines. They just don't have a label on the field, which is only the ten-yard lines, but there is a line across the field every five yards. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 00:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:::I agree that Randall is definitely referring to NFL-style US Football in this comic. Also, since the US women's 'futbol' team won the world cup, we're officially calling it 'Soccer' until someone wins the championship back from us. ;S
:::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 11:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
::::Agree it is a American Football field (as we call it abroad, also you do not use your feet much to kick the ball compared to Soccer). Do Woman play football? I believe most people who actually care about football do not care for the Womans futbal :-D By the way I don't care for sport, almost on the same level here as Randall, and also I did not know that there were a 5 yard line on an American Football field, but all the time assumed it was. As far as I know there are no distance lines on a regular real football field (soccer field to you). --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Should we have a geology category, like we have [[:Category:Geography]] and many other science categories? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
:Just realizes I could easily find more than 10 comics that would fit into that category, so I have created it: [[:Category:Geology]]

This reminds me of The Cosmic Calendar from Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" TV Series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln8UwPd1z20 [[User:Gpg|Gpg]] ([[User talk:Gpg|talk]]) 20:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
:The title text reminds me of a cartoon I once read where these two guys talk to God hidden in the clouds. Guy: ''God is it true that a million years feel like a minute to you?'' God: ''Yes my son.'' Guy: ''Is it also true that a million dollars would be like a dime to you?'' God: ''Yes my son, that is true!'' Guy: ''God, could you spare a dime for me?'' God: ''Yes my son, in a minute.'' :-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 21:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What does anything in this comic mean? Asking for… absolutely everyone in every single country except the USA. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 09:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:I think there are a few people outside the USA who understand yards and feet, and even what an American football field is. [[User:Catherine|Catherine]] ([[User talk:Catherine|talk]]) 10:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
::Sure, but very few outside the USA have an intuitive feel for what the actual relative sizes are except for "a football field is probably pretty big and a microscope can see very small things". So outside the USA it's an analogy that is less useful than just saying the time in years. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 13:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
:::A regular football field and an American football field is almost the same size and a yard is close to a meter. I'm pretty sure than 90% of those coming here did understand the analogy in this comic, and the other 10% was probably from the US ;-D --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

== Please use the metric system in your explanation. Randall does not approve of imperial units. ==

[[Special:Contributions/172.68.182.172|172.68.182.172]] 14:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

He wouldn't touch the english system with a 3.048 meter pole [[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2019-08-04T21:56:42Z

Whereisspike:

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft.
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])

Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:And there's a lot of selection bias in who reviews movies from pre-2000 as anyone who reviews a movie probably only went to that movies page and wrote a review, because they either really like the movie, or really really really hate it.[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2184: Unpopular Opinions

2019-08-04T21:42:55Z

Whereisspike: comment

I wonder if it has to be below 50% with critic score, audience score, or both? [[User:Andyd273|Andyd273]] ([[User talk:Andyd273|talk]]) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Genisys has an Audience Score of 53%, so I think it has to be critic score (Tomatometer). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.124|108.162.241.124]] 21:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
::Critics and audiences are really two distinct groups. So to be "apples to apples", I'd think it would have to be a movie with an Audience score below 50. Disagreeing with something critics hated isn't that rare among the general audience. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.18|162.158.106.18]] 04:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::The whole idea of the challenge doesn't make sense if the movie is "only" hated by a handful of random critics. As Randall points out, it is easier to hate a movie that everyone loves, so that is also true for critics. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
::I have to agree that basing it on the critic reviews only doesn't make much sense. I can find dozens of movies I like that are rated rotten by the critics, but nearly all of them got good audience reviews (Bright, Constentine, Super Troopers, K-Pax, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, etc). I can only find one that I like that that scores under 50% with both groups, Southland Tales, and even I'll admit it has many flaws. I suspect Randal Monroe was looking at movies that were rated "Rotten" by both groups (green icon and <60%), vs "fresh" (red icon > 60%). But the rules were already a bit too lengthy to spell it out explicitly. [[user]][[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

[https://www.rottentomatoes.com/browse/dvd-streaming-all?minTomato=0&maxTomato=49&services=amazon;hbo_go;itunes;netflix_iw;vudu;amazon_prime;fandango_now&genres=1;2;4;5;6;8;9;10;11;13;18;14&sortBy=tomato Movies] on DVD or streaming, tomatometer 49% down to 0%.

Plenty of Twilight fans will raise their hands - it is rated 49% --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] ([[User talk:Thomcat|talk]]) 18:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Well, I'm around the typical age of (original) Twilight fans, and none of the movies in the saga came in my adult life. (But they're all below 50%)[[Special:Contributions/162.158.103.147|162.158.103.147]] 18:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, Shaft got a 30% on the Tomatometer and a 94 on the audience score, and I loved it. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.22|108.162.241.22]] 18:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Do Waterworld, in spite of the fact that it only ticks two of the boxes, count? I really liked that one.
:I also liked Waterworld (44%, 1997) and The Postman (9%, 1995) (both with Kevin Kostner, and sort of the same story). Assuming the definition of adult is 18, they both qualify for the adult part, but not the after 2000 part. I also loved Star Wars Episode I, but sure enough, it's above 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. [[User:WhiteDragon|WhiteDragon]] ([[User talk:WhiteDragon|talk]]) 17:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

:If it didn't come out while you were an adult, then it doesn't count. [[User:N0lqu|-boB]] ([[User talk:N0lqu|talk]]) 20:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:My immediate search was also for Water World. Would it also not count when you didn't watch it until after 2000? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.46|172.69.55.46]] 18:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't watch enough movies (or know Rotten Tomatoes well enough) to participate in this particular challenge, but it seems like every time I enjoy a video game, it turns out to have a sizeable and vocal hatedom. I seriously can't relate to the caption here. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.165|162.158.107.165]] 20:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Batman v. Superman is probably a good answer for a fair number of people-it has a reasonable number of fans (including myself) who liked it, despite its very poor rating (28%) [[User:SirEpp|SirEpp]] ([[User talk:SirEpp|talk]]) 21:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
: I went to that movie for finding the plausible reason why Batman who only fights criminal and Superman being too unreal for ever being angry for no reason might have a fight which each other. Got less than I expected, in this aspect. But Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets, Thor: Ragnarok and Iron Sky are objectively superb films the critics hated. Perhaps with the exception of the relationship between Valerian and Laureline, perhaps, though.[[User:Gunterkoenigsmann|Gunterkoenigsmann]] ([[User talk:Gunterkoenigsmann|talk]]) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Not a movie, per se, but I thought season 8 of Game of Thrones was fantastic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.88|162.158.214.88]] 22:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Critically panned films that I like include: Crimes of Grindelwald, Passengers, and Warcraft.
:Oooh, ''Passengers'' is a good one, I'm stealing that. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I second Crimes of Grindelwald (37 RT), and add Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (48 RT), which I also enjoyed and actually recommend to people. Now these movies aren't "classics" or "great movies", they aren't perfect, but they are effective entertainment, and ''not'' because they "are so bad their good". Grindelwald has many effective scenes and acting, and Valerian is a very effective effort at making a movie out of a comic book that ''feels like a comic book''-- a fact I appreciated. Of course 48 RT is also just under the 50 RT threshold.[[User:Careysub|Careysub]] ([[User talk:Careysub|talk]])

Critically acclaimed films that I do not like: Avatar and Life of Pi. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.48.213|173.245.48.213]] 22:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Not under 50%, but I'm shocked that "The Secret Life of Walter Smitty" has only 51%... National Treasure has only 46%... I like this game, it is a test in optimism.
:"The Secret Life of Walter '''Mitty'''" deserves a low rating, particularly when compared to the original with Danny Kaye. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 05:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Frankly it would be easier to list the movies I like that aren't below 50% on rotten tomatoes. [[User:CJB42|CJB42]] ([[User talk:CJB42|talk]]) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)s

My experience with rotten tomatoes ratings in particular is that they have no clue and I find their ratings useless. The challenge from Randall in this comic is a case in point: the first movie I though to check, “Another Gay Movie” gets a 40% on the tomatometer yet is one of my favorites. Same thing with all the “Eating Out” movies: good comedies that I enjoy, yet Tomatometer scores of 16%, 44%, and 17% for the first three. (And why is “Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds” so much higher ranked than 1 or 3? It’s not that different...)
I think the criteria that Randal assumes (but doesn’t mention) is that the movie has to be a box office hit that appeals to mainstream audiences.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.73|162.158.107.73]] 03:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why Suicide Squad got trashed. It was light, colourful, had an engaging story, and well made. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.253.209|172.68.253.209]] 04:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Sucker Punch. There, I said it. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.77|141.101.99.77]] 07:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

There's a certain type of movie that 'h8ers' will auto-trash before they even come out (especially "Gender-switched version of a classic", like that ''Ghostbusters'', and "Strong female type", like ''Wonder Woman'' - as easy examples of those that some people love to hate, regardless of actual merit). So I recon there'd be good mileage in keeping an eye on (for example) the double-whammy that is the upcoming Female Thor movie. If it doesn't ''actually'' turn out to be so bad that you personally don't like it, I predict that it'll be pre-release troll-sniped down below 50% in "popular" opinion and even if they're not at all right about their guess there'll be a window of opportunity before any counter-viewpoint from actual viewers ups the score again. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the heck are all these Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller movies doing at sub-50%? I didn't know people supposedly hated Night at the Museum that much. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.189.67|172.68.189.67]] 17:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found two: Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I don't consider them like super-good, but I like them. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 00:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to the link I found four: Hancock, Knowing, The Lovely Bones, The Book of Eli.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.150.28|162.158.150.28]] 11:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

== Post-2000? ==

Anyone have an idea why "post-2000" is a criteria? [[User:Stevage|Stevage]] ([[User talk:Stevage|talk]]) 23:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
:Maybe because Rotten Tomatoes was launched close to the end of the 1990s, so post-2000 movies are the only ones that have been reviewed as they came out? Or perhaps it's to limit the scope of "movies that came out in your adult life", since adult life could go back a long way for some people. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 01:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:I don't know for certain, but I feel incredibly confident that it's the timing of Rotten Tomatoes, that older movies that came out before the site existed won't be thoroughly / properly covered. Like if you look closely you'll see the 40% rating on this movie comes from only 1 vote. I suspect Randall feels that as of 2000, there was enough activity on the site to provide sufficient coverage. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
:Pre-2000 films, being prior to RT, have the 'benefit'  of studied hindsight. Anybody who bothers to review [https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1003722_casino_royale the ''original'' Casino Royale], which would be my choice for this if I were allowed, just has far too much baggage to be thinking the same as with something just being appreciated in the context as a new-release. Including me, probably, across the many years since I first saw that film and fell in love with it, despite the obvious and total car-crash of its Development Hell! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.66|141.101.107.66]] 10:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I KNOW that there are many, many movies I can apply to this challenge - I often find myself enjoying unpopular movies. Plus, critics suck, they seem to always forget that this is ENTERTAINMENT. A clever movie that is dull as dirt and makes you fall asleep should NOT receive high praise, it fails at the primary function - but I can't think of them in the moment. About a week ago on Facebook I had a memory, a list of facts about Eurotrip, where the article called it a flop, while I loved it, so probably that one. This comic triggered my first ever visit to Rotten Tomatoes, who lists Eurotrip as I think 46%, but much higher for Audience score, so I THINK it counts? What bumps me is that it seems like "Audience Score" would be popular opinion, making Eurotrip actually a Popular movie, which seems like then it wouldn't apply here. ???? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis: People generally give more positive then negative reviews, and positive reviews also cause more people to watch. The number of watching for something bad is therefor lower, while a good movie is watched so often there is always a critic.
[[Special:Contributions/172.69.55.190|172.69.55.190]] 10:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with people who don't like Ghost Rider or Daredevil? — [[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 19:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2126: Google Trends Maps

2019-03-21T21:27:17Z

Whereisspike:

I'm not quite sure I understand the comic. And no, the irony of saying that on a wiki dedicated to explaining them is not lost on me. Do the maps show which word/phrase is more common in google in each state by comparing only the options to each other or where they actually the top searched words/phrases at some point in time?[[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.34|162.158.92.34]] 10:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:Pretty sure they're all top searched words/phrases in some states at some point in the past. It's just that Randall has merged maps from different time periods. For example in the first map, "heat stroke" and "frostbite" are two real results, but the former is likely a result that appeared in summer, while the latter is likely one that appeared in winter. By merging the two maps you get a map that doesn't make sense, as it looks like they were the top searches in the same time period while in reality they weren't. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 11:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
::I think that Randall is just clarifying that each map may be showing trends for a different time range (otherwise people might try to compare the maps to each other, which isn't the point of the comic). I don't think he's saying that the individual results in each map are from different time ranges. [[User:Hawthorn|Hawthorn]] ([[User talk:Hawthorn|talk]]) 11:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:::Yeah, if the results were from different time periods, you could pretty much manipulate them however you want. It would make it much less interesting. Not that statistician don't already manipulate data in any way possible...[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 16:51, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
From what it looks like, these are year-long averages. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 12:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
:Here's one I just made using an example Randall is given: [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=frostbite,heat%20stroke Frostbite VS Heatstroke] It does appear to be either using averaging or summing over time to produce a map that is decently similar to Randall's [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.23|108.162.221.23]] 16:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Sam
::Randolph's matches the 5 year average exactly[[User:Whereisspike|Whereisspike]] ([[User talk:Whereisspike|talk]]) 21:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example for the Google Trends on the first example. [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&q=frostbite,heat%20stroke] It looks like he picked last 5 years for that one. There should be a table with links to all of them. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.142|162.158.59.142]] 17:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

For those that find the actual image to be mysteriously missing, that's because the image source URL is https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/a/ad/google_trends_maps.png , and some ad blockers will silently block it because it looks like a path to advertising images. So maybe turn off your adblocker on this site? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.170.64|172.69.170.64]] 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the sexting graph look like the midwest is "giving it" to the southeast, with Arkansas and Tennessee playing the naughty bits? I wonder if Randall did this intentionally or if I'm just a perv. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.186.108|162.158.186.108]] 01:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
: I'm pretty sure the best answer to the above is the last line of https://xkcd.com/960/ ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.69.50.52|172.69.50.52]] 04:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I feel like "little dog" is most often entered by people searching for unusually small pets, not people wanting to learn about coyotes (which as far as I know are generally just called coyotes). This would still provide an amusing contrast with "big cats" (either the pet or wild versions). --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.102|162.158.106.102]] 06:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I've just transcribed the maps by listing which states are in which colour (dammit, I mean "color", I'm trying to use US spellings here). I've left the "incomplete" tag on there, though, because there are things that others might want to review:
* I only did lists for the color(s) with the fewest states, leaving the longest list as "all other states". This makes it less extensive, but potentially less useful (for, say, searching for a state's name).
* I wasn't sure whether or not to list the District of Columbia. I'm not sure whether the maps include it or not, and if it is included, it's not easy to tell whether it's blue or gray. The only case where it definitely looks like it's present (because it's a different color to both Maryland and Virginia) is in the "Donald Trump/What do I do" map, where it seems to be red. However, I'm still not certain; it could just be an artifact of Randall's graphics process. (Compare Massachusetts on the same map, where the bit sticking out... Cape Cod? yeah, that... is clearly gray, unlike the rest of the state.) That said, it may be part of the joke that "What do I do" is a popular search in Washington, DC!
* I'm not American and may have made mistakes in identifying states.
-- [[User:Peregrine|Peregrine]] ([[User talk:Peregrine|talk]]) 09:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My first thought on Mike Pence and Bigfoot was ... wasn't Mike Pence the one who did "Bigfoot Porn"? But no, that turned out to be the Virginia politician Leslie Cockburn. Still, I wonder whether that brought bigfoot to his mind.

[[User:Jensfiederer|Jensfiederer]] ([[User talk:Jensfiederer|talk]]) 16:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)